AuthorTopic: Afghanistan War Ending? (Read 1827 times)

However - this country is starting to make it look like the Movie Idocracy is spot on.

Logged

I have learned that only two things are necessary to keep one's wife happy. First, let her think she's having her own way. And second, let her have it.Lyndon B. Johnson

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.Lyndon B. Johnson

You can attribute a lot of that from our Federal and State controlled Educational programs...No local input necessary - Teach to the Test - Teach to the lowest common denominator - No Discipline allowed - Pass the failures to the next grade to deal with

There are smaller and smaller numbers of youth who get involved,most from the guidance or push from their "family"...

"Teach to the Test"I found this:What's so bad about teaching to the test?If teaching content standards is considered teaching to the test, it may not be such a bad thing.

Is teaching to the test bad?

It all depends on the test and the teacher. If the test measures the skills students are expected to be learning and teachers prepare students by teaching those skills, then teaching to the test is a good thing.

But if the test is not directly related to what is being taught or teachers depend on repeated drills with old test questions to prepare students, it's a different story. Teaching to the test can waste valuable learning time.No Child Left Behind puts testing on the front burner

The federal No Child Left Behind law (NCLB), which went into effect in 2002, has caused schools to "be accountable," which translates into focusing a lot of attention on state standardized testing and results. It requires all schools to test students in grades 2-12 in reading, math and science. Each state chooses its own test and standards of proficiency. Schools that don't show that students are making "adequate yearly progress" toward achieving proficiency are subject to federal sanctions, including loss of federal funds, providing free tutoring, allowing students to transfer to another school, and if all else fails, a complete restructuring of the school.

Critics of the law say that the emphasis on testing in reading and math means other subjects, such as social studies and the arts, are getting less attention. Some schools have even done away with or cut back on recess time because of the pressure to spend more school time preparing students to pass state tests.

On the positive side, students across the country (particularly in the lower grades) have made progress in basic skills in reading and math, but studies show that the improvements don't necessarily hold up in middle school and beyond, when the tests get more complex and critical thinking skills are necessary.It's all about alignment

In the wake of NCLB, there is much talk about aligning instruction, curriculum, standards and assessment. This basically means that teachers and students have a clear idea of what they are expected to learn. In the best of all possible worlds, the state provides textbooks and curriculum that match the standards, and the tests measure achievement of the standards. Most state Departments of Education are working to devise systems that do just that, but many are not there yet. A study by the American Federation of Teachers found that 11 out of 50 states completely met the criteria for having both strong content standards and documenting that the tests align to the standards, specifically in grades 3 through 12 and subjects (reading and math) required by NCLB.http://www.greatschools.org/students/academic-skills/400-teaching-to-the-test.gs

I'm not an advocate...I just don't want to see testing eliminated.

"Teach to the lowest common denominator"Not quite the negative you've framed it as considering this:Why Finland's Unorthodox Education System Is The Best In The WorldAll children, clever or not, are taught in the same classrooms.The difference between weakest and strongest students is the smallest in the World.Teachers only spend 4 hours a day in the classroom, and take 2 hours a week for "professional development."The school system is 100% state funded.All teachers in Finland must have a masters degree, which is fully subsidized.There is no merit pay for teachershttp://www.businessinsider.com/finlands-education-system-best-in-world-2012-11?op=1

Finland’s schools are publicly funded. The people in the government agencies running them, from national officials to local authorities, are educators, not business people, military leaders or career politicians. Every school has the same national goals and draws from the same pool of university-trained educators. The result is that a Finnish child has a good shot at getting the same quality education no matter whether he or she lives in a rural village or a university town. The differences between weakest and strongest students are the smallest in the world, according to the most recent survey by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Equality is the most important word in Finnish education. All political parties on the right and left agree on this,” said Olli Luukkainen, president of Finland’s powerful teachers union.http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html?c=y&page=2

I suspect you meant Corporal punishment...which I have issues with considering how subjective and arbitrary history has shown it could be meted out...but sadly, it appears it's still legal in many states:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_corporal_punishment"Pass the failures to the next grade to deal with"Can't argue with that since it does seem to happen. I'd much rather the US modeled the educational system after Finland.

As for the actual topic...I found this:US 'should stay' in Afghanistan past 2014

With public and Congressional debate heating up over post-bin Laden US policy in South Asia, a think tank with close ties to the administration of President Barack Obama is calling for a strategy that will keep Washington deeply engaged in the region for a long time to come.

In a 40-page report released on Wednesday, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) said Washington should negotiate a long-term strategic partnership agreement with Afghanistan that would keep 25,000 to 35,000 US troops in that country well beyond the 2014 date which the US and its allies have set for withdrawal.

It also calls for a "more nuanced" policy towards Pakistan designed to strengthen those state actors that cooperate with US security interests there and punish those that do not, notably military and intelligence officials or sectors suspected of supporting or otherwise cooperating with terrorist groups, notably al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT, and the Pakistani Taliban, Tehrik-i-Taliban).

"As part of a differentiated approach toward Pakistan, the United States should explore using targeted financial pressure against individuals and organisations in Pakistan with links to trans- national terrorism and insurgency in the region," the report said.

The report, Beyond Afghanistan: A Regional Security Strategy for South and Central Asia also called for Washington to quietly broker confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan, deepen its partnership with New Delhi, promote economic growth by backing open trade and transit throughout the region, and develop a "strategic public engagement plan" aimed at reversing "growing tide of anti-American sentiment," especially in Pakistan.

The report, which was one year in preparation, comes at a critical moment in the debate over future US policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan in the aftermath of the killing earlier this month by US Special Forces of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden at a compound where he had reportedly been living for some six years in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Obama had promised 18 months ago to begin drawing down the 100,000 US troops currently deployed to Afghanistan this July, and bin Laden's demise has reignited a debate within his administration over the pace and size of that withdrawal.

That debate pits officials, reportedly led by Vice President Joe Biden, who favour a substantial and relatively speedy withdrawal and the transformation of the US role in Afghanistan to a "counterterrorist (CT) strategy", against those, led by General David Petraeus, who will soon take over the Central Intelligence Agency, who remain committed to a "counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy" that requires Washington to maintain a much-heavier military footprint.

I'm not in favor of long-term involvement outside of our borders but one cannot deny the positives considering how many Americans are drawing steady paychecks. Not only those directly employed in the military but those supplying the munitions as well.

Having said that, I'd still prefer bringing the troops home.But it's imperative that the Republicans in Congress get off their behinds to bolster the economy to ensure that jobs will be there when the time comes.

The factions are too divided in the Middle East and the balance of power teeters back and forth too often for there ever to be any foreign "meddler" to have any long term advantages. Yet, we just continue to pump $1.6 Billion annually into those countries in military and cash aid never knowing exactly what side the weapons will go to.

Fry hit the nail on the head, it's good for the economy to pump out weapons to give them away free while the military industrial complex gets paid handsomely to support.

I'm with you on that last post. Our interference in the Middle East began with our ill advised support of the Shaw of Iran who was a ruthless, suppressive dictator that ended up costing us the Iranian hostage situation. Hell, we financially and militarily backed Saddam Hussein against Iran. Unf'ingbelievable, and now we are going in for more.

What's the definition of insanity once again?

Yet I see no civil disobedience as was demonstrated in the 60's and 70's......we have successfully been neutered!

If you look into the Shah of Iran situation you will quickly find that we installed him. We overthrew the duly elected government and put him in place because the Prime Minister of Iran at the time Mossadeq nationalised their oil and the Brits and Americans were NOT going to have that!

If you look into the Shah of Iran situation you will quickly find that we installed him. We overthrew the duly elected government and put him in place because the Prime Minister of Iran at the time Mossadeq nationalised their oil and the Brits and Americans were NOT going to have that!